Fallout 3 LGC: MTV Multiplayer

[FeelTheRads]

and probably they put it there only so that you could take out the behemoth.

Yay for boss fights and weapons readily available to kill them. RPG at its best.
Do I also have the possibility to step on plates to kill it easier?

 

[Dracon M'Alkir]

no, I don't. I just see such unnecessary hatred and unfounded critisism here that I like to somehow try and put things in a more positive perspective. or simply point out when people don't know what the hell they are complaining about, because they complain only to complain.l

it wasn't impossible to make it all the way down to Navarro on your first playthrough. I'm sure not a lot of people did it, and even fewer got the PA and then headed for the Bozar next. my point was that it was possible. so why can't it be possible to find one of the best weapons early on in Fallout 3? we all know already that the ammo will be scarce. most likely, you'll get 1 or 2 shots for it when you find it at that point. and probably they put it there only so that you could take out the behemoth. I really don't see what the problem is. nowhere does it say that he no longer had any use for his pistol but could now run around and blast everything with the fat-man.

Problems with your theory:

A. To get into Navarro to get the Power Armor MK II, required a high speech level. This was impossible to do without tagging Speech, and even so, it would take you several attempts to convince them to let you in.

B. Navarro does not appear on your world map UNTIL you get the quest to steal the Vertibird plans from the Brotherhood of Steel representative in San Fransisco. This means you would have had to made it to San Fran without getting roasted by an enclave patrol special encounter, various other mutant encounters (centaurs, floaters) and SOMEHOW incidentally found the Brotherhood of Steel outpost.

C. The lockers in the Navarro armory contain a Plasma Rifle. Getting a Bozar is obsolete directly then and there.

So given all of these variables, the chances of a person getting to Navarro, raiding the armory, WITHOUT knowing about it, are absolutely zero.

It is like you leaving your house right now, getting to Fort Cheyenne, and then somehow "guessing" the nuclear launch codes. (As well as bypassing security by talking your way in.)

The ONLY way this is possible, is either

A. You've finished the game

or

B. You've read a walkthrough. Both of which make your point absolutely void; because getting an ultimate weapon in Fallout 3 WITHOUT knowing about it (aka intended), fifteen minutes in, is completely stupid.

 

[Brother None]

I think people are getting worked up over a house. I'm not saying it will be a good game or like Fallout, but seriously...

I agree it's probably a minor issue. But it's yet another minor issue on a big pile of minor and major issues. So many little things they got wrong, it's amazing.

it wasn't impossible to make it all the way down to Navarro on your first playthrough. I'm sure not a lot of people did it, and even fewer got the PA and then headed for the Bozar next. my point was that it was possible. so why can't it be possible to find one of the best weapons early on in Fallout 3

Look, the comparison is false. I can all but guarantee you 0% of the people playing Fallout 1 for the first time got the PA and bozar (or PA and any big/energy weapon) early in the game, let alone within 90 minutes. This previewer decided to wander off in one direction and just picked it up off the floor. There's no way you can compare the two.

 

[gc051360]

Just to add.

"But it's optional".....isn't exactly a response to the argument of "The idea of a house with a robot butler doesn't fit Fallout's setting"

It's a distraction. And it fits in with the theme of trying to trivialize every single complaint about Fallout 3.

Every time I see a complaint about Fallout 3, or an argument about Fallout 3...there is someone making an argument that "well, that doesn't really matter anyway" and I really want a list of "what matters", from those people.

Because all I heard when it was revealed to be a FP perspective, and real time combat was "all that matters is setting and atmosphere", but when the setting and atmosphere is violated, people still go with the "that doesn't matter" argument. So what matters? That it's got "Fallout" on the box, a 50's motif, and a post apocalyptic theme? That's it?

Or, are people so willing to defend Fallout 3, that they will ignore logic completely, and reject any criticism of Fallout 3 as a knee jerk reaction?

 

[aenemic]

look, the comparison isn't "false". and I just compared the two, so yes there is a way I can. like I've said before, you're not winning just because you say that something is false or invalid.

however, I do agree that it's not the same thing. but very likely this is one occasion where they had in mind that you could get to the good stuff early on in Fallout 2 and decided to do the same, only their way, in this game. like they've told us about the PA you can find early on, it will be in really shoddy condition and not that useful. but you CAN find it. something tells me it's the exact same thing with the Fat-man.

my comparison was a bit simplified, but it still helps my point come across.

 

[gc051360]

but you CAN find it.

No you can't.

Theoretically it is possible, but the odds of doing so are so small, that you can declare it impossible.

We're talking about getting the advanced power armor, and bozar very early in the game, right? That's impossible without some kind of prior knowledge.

my comparison was a bit simplified, but it still helps my point come across.

Your point seems to be entirely assumption.

 

[Brother None]

something tells me it's the exact same thing with the Fat-man.

Ok. From the previewer's description, how exactly do you figure this is comparable to getting any good stuff early in Fallout 1 or 2, which always necessitated the kind of prior knowledge this previewer does not have of Fallout 3?

 

[AskWazzup]

It seems that every previewer can only hope to kill the big ogre with the nuclear catapult. It also seems that it won't be that easy to mod it out, because that might bring some ballance issues

Though i wonder, if the nuclear catapult is a randomly generated loot, or hand placed.

 

[Brother None]

Though i wonder, if the nuclear catapult is a randomly generated loot, or hand placed.

From the descriptions we've seen, it's tied to the Behemoth encounter, which Pete has described as a boss battle of sorts.

So, yes:

1. Its intended use is limited to killing the Behemoth
2. It might well be of limited use in other fights
3. The claim that it's not a common weapon in the sense that there's little ammo is probably true, but it's also pretty darned easy to get

 

[AskWazzup]

From the descriptions we've seen, it's tied to the Behemoth encounter, which Pete has described as a boss battle of sorts.

Hm.... If the behemoth is a boss battle, that would make him the only behemoth in F3? And if the nuclear catapult is intendet for killing the behemoth, it would also make it the only nuclear catapult in F3?

I don't know, that doesn't seem right, because the nuclear catapult is part of the big gun skill. Surely putting such a limited weapon in the big gun category (which will probably not be as rich, in variety, as the samll guns department) would be kind of strange and might render the big gun skill a bit uselless in comparison to small guns or energy weapons, since the most powerful big gun weapon has only a few shells.

 

[thefalloutfan]

Yeah, I guess I just want to have fun.

Whew, well, thank goodness for Fallout since there aren't any other games to just 'have fun' with around. Good thing that Bethesda is filling that 'fun game' niche with Fallout which was never much of a thinking game in the first place. Forget the established lore and canon that makes the setting cohesive and interesting in the first place and might actually make that '3' in the title something meaningful for the series rather than just being Bethesda's dick-waving exercise. Forget any consideration towards sensible verisimilitude concerning that setting. Woohoo fun!

If you want to have fun, why argue against us? We want to have fun too.

I'm not arguing against you, I'm stating my opinion, just like all of you. Only I'm one of the odd ones out as I don't bash the game cause I'm liking it.

I love the, "It's fun" defense. There are a lot of things in life that are fun. Good things are fun, bad things are fun, mediocre things are fun. Not everything that is fun should be in a game, especially if it ruins the overall feel and setting of it.

Whenever you take multiple functions and cram them into one platform you get a series of mediocre functions whereas you could have focused on one function and made it fantastic.

So what you have is bethesda trying to make a game for 6.5 billion people and what is going to happen is that everyone is going to be disappointed in the end.

Oblivion was fun, but the main storyline was shit, the combat was lacking, and the enemies leveling up with you was terrible.

Heroin is fun until it fucks up your entire life.

Counter strike is fun until 30 minutes later you figure out its just desert eagle, awp, AK, and M4.

Halo is fun until you play the single player.

Just because something is fun, does not mean it is of quality or has any replayablity or staying power.

And haircuts and character customization is total bullshit. Oh I have a beard and a hat, this game is so fantastic. Except that it means nothing since there are many many games without this feature that are better than games with it.

If you want to go play something fun I would suggest you try Barbie Horse Adventure; I think it's right up your alley.

Meh, I love the customization, and yes it's optional you know? Don't give me the "it doesn't matter that it's optional because it's still there", because I want the option. Good thing they included it, because you know people's opinion differ? No point in arguing this, it's something which has got to do with my tastes. Just know that because it wasn't in the previous fallouts doesn't mean it's bad, and because it was in the previous fallouts doesn't automatically mean it's good. I welcome change, and am looking forward to it. Accept the fact that there are lots of people who are looking forward to fallout 3, and don't tell them to go and play "Barbie Horse Adventure". Why don't you go back to fallout 1 and 2 then?

 

[rcorporon]

But see I think the arguement that getting a house doesn't fit is not really a valid arguement..

Given that you have already done something good for the town they figure they want to try to keep you around.. it's self-serving and fits well into the feeling of the game.

Does your character USING the house fit.. well now I think THAT is a question.. and that then goes back to the optionality of the gameplay.

EDIT:
sorry.. I meant them "offering" a house fits.. not the act of accepting.

It doesn't fit for the simple reason that there shouldn't be an abundance of empty housing, hell, there shouldn't be a housing market period.

As for the nature of quest rewards, again, the house doesn't fit. Hell, I saved Killian's life, then rid the town of Gizmo, and you want to know what my reward was? A shotgun and 40 rounds of ammo for it. That fits the theme of a wasteland much better than a house.

 

[Beelzebud]

I'm going to decorate my house with a Vault theme and place Teddy Bears all around it! It's going to be so neat!

Any chance I can get married and settle down?

I always felt that all the Fallout series needed was a "Let's play house" mode.

 

[Per]

You don't like the 27/8/2 Teddy Mortar? FINE. Don't research frigging Teddy Bear Tech! Is that so hard. Just because it wasn't in Civ 1-6 doesn't meant it doesn't have a place in the franchise... TEDDYSOFT OWNS IT NOW YOU WANT CIV LIKE IT ALWAYS WAS MAKE YOUR OWN or go and play Civ 1! The rest of us are moving forward! Teddy bears are in all games now, why should Civ be the ONLY franchise without bears. I keep asking this but I only get a lot of whining in reply. If you don't like it JUST IGNORE IT!!!

Well from what we've seen in demonstrations you need to research Teddy Bear Tech in order to research Fusion Power and Improved Genetics so I don't see how we could really ignore it. And in any case Teddysoft said they "don't have unlimited bears and typewriters" so reasonably every bear they assign to this comes from somewhere else.

I don't care about that really. I don't know why you're saying it to me because I have my opinion and it's mine. Stop whining!!

Wrong board, strike, strike.

 

[doomestic]

I have already deconstructed the argument further in following posts. I have nothing to say about the game-to-film-to-music comparison other that indeed the comparison alone is not a solid argument, but that comparison is not the crux of my argument.

Though I should note that I find the comparison invalid myself, you actually validated it yourself:

Oh, same goes with the a "movie". If you close your eyes to a certain part of a movie or shut your ears to a certain part of the music, you cannot go and choose alternative music of the same theme to listen to in the meantime.

You can go and choose alternative tracks when listening to a CD. Does that mean bad songs on the CD aren't bad?

Thanks for supporting my argument, I guess.

Actually, you nicely backpedaled through your argument. In the first post you said:

Or when you're listening to music and hate bits of it? Just put your fingers in your ears and hum!

In your first argument you were comparing the Game to a single song. It implied that you have to shut your ears during a single TRACK of music, or during a song, when a "bad part" of it comes up, which is a ridiculous concept. In a sense you are comparing a linear experience, to a multi-optional experience.

Now you have changed to an entirely different argument: "switching to other tracks on the CD" that you like and ignore the ENTIRE songs that you disliked. In other words, you no longer are comparing the game to a song, but to an album, which is a multi-optional experience.

Interestingly enough, that backpedaling perfectly supports my argument, because I have yet to buy a single album that I found all of its tracks to be good, even the albums I loved the most. I often skipped the bad songs and kept playing the ones I liked, which is exactly the original point. If you don't like "owning a house", simply skip it, and continue playing the parts of the game you actually enjoy.

So no, it does not mean "bad" songs are not "bad", because that was not the point. It means that "bad" songs in your perspective, can be entirely ignored, which WAS the point. Of course, that is besides the fact that those "bad" songs in your opinion, can appeal to other people, thus it is simply an option left for others who have a different taste in "songs".

But instead, you guys want to claim that optional things like buying a house are dragging down the ENTIRE experience, which is not the case when this is entirely optional and avoidable.

Thanks for supporting my argument... I guess.

 

[Brother None]

Actually, you nicely backpedaled through your argument.

I didn't backpedal, I said it was meant as a fun stab and recognized that it's not a valid argument. See:
I have already deconstructed the argument further in following posts. I have nothing to say about the game-to-film-to-music comparison other that indeed the comparison alone is not a solid argument, but that comparison is not the crux of my argument.

Is there something unclear about that? You're actually harping on my choice of words in an argument I already reneged upon. Reaching for straws much?

I admit, my bad in trying to then make a joke about your counter-argument, I should've guessed you'd harp on it needlessly (with a rather weak argument by the way, I can shoot it down if you want but I'd rather not). But let me state it more clearly here so there's no fooling: the comparison to film/music is a weak argument and is not (nor was it ever meant to be, but eh) the crux of my argument? See. Done. I was my hands of the whole thing.

 

[PaladinHeart]

It would make more sense if there was something wrong with the house.

I'll try to think of a few scenarios..

Okay, let's say they give you a house on the outskirts of town. You're strolling along and quite happy with yourself because you're getting you're very own house and.. you don't see a house? Hmm.. well there is this cave here.. with a pack of rabid dogs living inside. Guess they're just using you to solve another one of their problems....

Another possibility, is they give you a house and tell you there's the robot butler in it and everything. You go inside. It seems pretty nice. Everything is so clean.. Then you get run out by the robot who wants to flame you. It seems the robot has been functioning for 200 years and maintaining the previous owners house, and nobody knows how to get rid of it. If you DO kill the robot, or repair it (so you can get your spiffy haircut), then squatters will likely attempt to claim your house while you're gone (if you destroyed the robot). Lots of good choices and consequences there, IMO.

Yet another possibility, is that the house is extremely irradiated (or whatever) and nobody can live in it because of the radiation.

 

[doomestic]

Y'know those little minigames when flying your ship in Jade Empire? Only had to do it once, but that doesn't matter to the question "was it good design to include that flying ship thing in Jade Empire"? Answer: no, it is stupid.

Something being fully optional does not mean it fails to impact your enjoyment of the game, because:

1. The very existence of the option can hurt the feel of the setting, as is the case here.

2. In many cases the game is balanced to assume you made this choice even if it is optional. I can't carry everything around in Fallout 3, that much is sure, so how good are the odds I'm going to need this house?

It all comes down to this: optional does not mean irrelevant. Your argument doesn't work because something can still be stupid even if you can choose to ignore it. Hell, ad absurdo, what if I reduce your argument to this: it doesn't matter that there's a flying pink pony in Fallout 3 that you can ride around, because it's optional.

Eh? Eh? See how that doesn't work?

First I will start by deconstructing your first reason, and your ridiculous pony comparison.

The most important issue to note here, is that it is entirely your opinion and a few others on this board that buying a home might "hurt" the setting. Now it could be a valid complaint. But something is certain:

Some people won't care about it. Some people will hate it entirely, and some people will love it.

Now let us move to your pony comparison. Let me introduce you to a very well known concept in statistics called a bell curve:

When Bethesda made a choice of including a "house" option in fallout, it took a risk. A pony in the world of fallout is going to be like putting a dot to the very very left of the bell curve. The population of people that will like the idea will be represented by the area under the curve to the left of the point on the X axis, and the people to the right of it will hate it. In this case the people that will like it will be a very negligible number. They stand to have almost the entire population of the game players hating the concept.

Now the house on the other hand, is clearly not going to be to the very very far left but closer to the center than a pony, and there is a good chance people that a large portion of people will like it, but possibly also a good chance of people who might hate it, but the numbers will probably be much closer than say a "pony". In other words it is not an equally "wacky" idea. In fact Bethesda might stand to gain more people to like it than hate it. Bethesda might project that the house will come to the far right. In other words more people will like it than hate it, and as such it would be worth the risk.

You see, the problem with your argument is that you use quantitative concepts in an arbitrary "faux" qualitative argument.

Your second reason:

2. In many cases the game is balanced to assume you made this choice even if it is optional. I can't carry everything around in Fallout 3, that much is sure, so how good are the odds I'm going to need this house?

is nothing but pure speculation. But since you guys like to speculate a lot, and since Oblivion is the game you like to compare this game to, often in negative ways, then let us compare it to Oblivion. In my 20 or so runs in Oblivion, I have never once felt obliged to buy a home. In fact, I didn't find out about the ability to purchase a property in the game until my 3rd run. Oblivion was most definitely not balanced around the option of buying a house, and if it is any indication, then Fallout 3 will follow suit.

 

[thefalloutfan]

Interesting doomestic, nice one

 

[Seymour the spore plant]

The most important issue to note here, is that it is entirely your opinion and a few others on this board that buying a home might "hurt" the setting. Now it could be a valid complaint. But something is certain:

Some people won't care about it. Some people will hate it entirely, and some people will love it.

Yes, we are indeed discussing opinions here. But that should not prove a problem unless people fail to adress the merit of said opinions, in this case wether a house hurts the setting or not. Saying that some people will like something, or more people will like it than not, is just an ad populum and does not make that inclusion a right choice - especially since the issue at hand is consistency with a pretty well-defined setting which is not really open to voting.

Now, you do a very compelling defense of Bethesda's design in terms of risk assessment, which is often used to justify the switch to FP and RT as well; but that is a business and marketing decision, and not necessarily the best in terms of game design. They already face several pitfalls from turning to FPS (such as the uselesness of VATS to melee combat) despite it being popular an selling a whole lot more, and I'd say it's about the same thing here except that the negative impact of that choice is less easily noticed, concerning setting and feel instead of directly affecting the gameplay.